Speaking against POTUS violates UCMJ Article 88 and 134. Why do you think it's ok?

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 02:45:05 -0400

Also: UCMJ applies to retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Oct 1 at 2014 7:11 AM

MSG Wade Huffman — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 07:11:53 -0400

I don't mean to offend, nor is my intent to discount the importance of the topic, but I believe this has been discussed to near death. Here are two similar threads on the same topic:

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/directly-criticizing-the-president-on-rallypoint

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/veterans-or-soldiers-targeting-our-president

Directly criticizing the President on RallyPoint. | RallyPoint

I understand it is very tempting to fall into the social media trap when discussing topics we are passionate about. I've done it a couple of times and thought better of it later. That being said, it is very undisciplined for an active member of the armed services to offer disrespectful comments about the President of the United States. This is especially inadvisable on a social network set aside for service members and veterans. Most of us are...

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2014 7:13 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 07:13:54 -0400

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member While the UCMJ applies to those entitled to pay - I'm operating from memory only here, but as I recall, the particular paragraphs in the Article 88 deals with Commissioned officers and not non-commissioned. In addition, while the general article (134) is the ever present "catch-all" used in every single court-martial and Article 15 I have ever heard of, I have never heard of anyone being charged for either charge based on a political discussion or conversation.

Disagreeing with POTUS is not something you'll likely ever see anyone get court-martialed for. Making aspersions of a personal or extremely derogatory nature...meh...another story. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of comments being made re: POTUS but I haven't seen anything in RP that might make me blow a gasket.

As for bringing me back on AD just to prosecute me for my opinions.....I think I'd have to cross a whole lotta lines I have yet to even consider approaching before the SECDEF / POTUS would bring me back on AD, especially considering some of the comments I've had friends send me based on FB / Twitter rants attributed to some Senior Officers (retired/reserves/AD).

However, you do have a solid point. Senior personnel, AD or retired, should police themselves and their commentary in RP. Not because we should be afraid to express ourselves, but because there are a host of junior enlisted personnel that are active on RP. These junior enlisted might not make the connection between what is proper/ok for retired personnel and what is NOT proper for AD. Even in retirement, retired personnel should set the example and expectations for our AD members.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 1 at 2014 10:42 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:42:33 -0400

The question of the applicability of Article 88–which bans contemptuous speech directed at superiors and civilian leaders - is complicated. There are no cases of attempted prosecutions of retired personnel for violating this article. The standard for preferring such charges against a retiree is different from the one required to accuse active duty officers. To prosecute a retired officer, the military would have to show that the words used “create a clear and present danger” leading to evils “that Congress has a right to prevent.” This hurdle is much higher than the requirement to show for active duty officers that “the speech interferes with . . . the orderly accomplishment of the mission or presents a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops.”

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Oct 2 at 2014 2:15 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:15:09 -0400

I don't. As long as there's breath in my body and I wear this uniform, I will NEVER think it ok to speak against the POTUS. It leads to morale and discipline issues. This whole issue reminds me of that old adage "we fight for a democracy but the Army isn't one". That's just the way it is.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 2 at 2014 9:21 AM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:21:57 -0400

As with each time this has been previously discussed, it appears to be brought up in the same context, which is to say that "speaking against" the President is bad and punishable. It also seems that in many minds, any disagreement with the President constitutes contempt. Not true.

We do not have a King in the United States, we have a President. Presidents are not above the law, nor are they above being questioned or second guessed. Yes, you are in the Military, and you are subject to the UCMJ, and yes, the UCMJ does dictate that you remain respectful in your disagreement, but it doesn't take away your right to disagree. The following is an excerpt from a legal explanation of Article 88:

"It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article."

Article 134 is another story. You can pretty much be charged with anything for any reason under that one....but keep in mind: It does have to have SOME legal basis.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Oct 5 at 2014 3:09 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:09:23 -0400

What are you really asking? I am sure if you are offended by anything said about the current President, you thought it was just fine for the last President, or vice versus? Trying to bring those retired in to the mix is an interesting idea, but it still gets me back to my original question to your agenda? Are you for blindly following the President and not questioning anything? That worked out pretty well in NAZI Germany?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2014 7:54 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 19:54:47 -0400

Ok, who really thinks a retiree is going to get court martialed for speaking against the President? If you believe that, then I've got a story to tell you about how my wife sent me out on a date with Halle Berry and told me to have a good time.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 2:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:08:07 -0400

I down-voted this thread because it is false. UCMJ only applies to retirees for criminal acts committed while on Active duty. If any one of us who is retired commits a criminal now, we cannot be prosecuted under UCMJ but we can be prosecuted under civilian laws.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 6 at 2014 5:48 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:48:23 -0400

If f--king Jane Fonda is still walking around free after her bullshit antics during Vietnam then what can they do to us Veterans for poking fun of POTUS.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Oct 6 at 2014 6:51 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:51:15 -0400

Until there is some rule from RallyPoint that I cannot speak freely my views on any subject in a respectful manner, I will voice my disagreement about whatever I please. In my education process, I was taught how to question the world around me, how to research the issues, how to look for better solutions if they may exist, and how to critically think of new solutions should the old way of thinking fails. It is entertaining that people post UCMJ Articles in hopes that no one will fact check them.

For those in the future, pick up the Black's Law Dictionary before quoting an Article.

Back to the topic at hand, I voice my disagreement with the POTUS in the voting booth, if I don't like what he stands for, I vote against him, a legal and respectful way to say "F" them.